MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK. 

Analysis of school expenses of the City 
of New York. 



1900 



LI15RARY 

BUEEAU OF EDUCATIOiV 




ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL EXPENSES 



OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. 




Report to the Board of Directors 



OF 



The Merchants' Association of New York, 

DECEMBER J9, J900. 




Approved by Unanimous Vote of Twelve Directors and 

Ordered Published After Verification by 

a Special Committee. 



x^ 



ANALYSIS OF SCHOOL EXPENSES. 



New York, Dec. 19, 1900. 

To tfie Board of Directors of the Merchants Association of New York. 

Gentlemen : — In a previous report to you the assertion was made 
that the Board of Estimate and Apportionment acts upon the City 
Budget and votes appropriations without having- full knowledge of the 
facts, for the reason that the present defective system makes such 
knowledge difficult and often impossible to obtain, and in consequence 
that Board is compelled to depend upon the verbal statements of 
department heads. 

The examples that follow are cited to show 

1. That the official reports of the Board of Education are especially 

defective in data relating to average attendance, which is 
either the statutory or actual basis of appropriation and 
apportionment, and which greatly affects the amounts of 
specific outlays ; 

2. That such data of attendance as are given are inaccurate and 

contradictory, and therefore unreliable ; they are defective 
because they lack comprehensive exhibits of details ; because 
the details given are not usefully digested or classified ; and 
because their sums total do not produce the aggregates else- 
where stated as resulting from them ; 

3. That estimates submitted by the Board of Education to the 

Board of Estimate and Apportionment are in part based upon 
inaccurate data w^hich overstate the average attendance ; that 
the estimates for supplies assume the previous year's outlay 
as a correct basis, when it is in fact incorrect and excessive ; 
that the estimates of probable increase in attendance are like- 
wise excessive ; and that a progressive and cumulative 
increase in the annual outlay for supplies may be effected 
without being subjected to real scrutiny, and without obvious 
appearance of disproportion ; 

4. That the current estimates for supplies, which assume last years' 

outlays as a basis, allow $3.38^^ per capita for new scholars, 
while the actual per capita cost last year was but $2.02, 
according to the published reports of the Board of Education ; 

5. That the current estimates for supplies assume an increase in 

attendance in Manhattan about three times as great as the 
normal increase and four times as great as the officially stated 



increase of the last school year ; that a larg-e part of the 
increased attendance thus assumed and provided for is 
deduced not from previous attendance and annual increase of 
population, but from the capacity of new schoolhouses, Avhich 
will be occupied in large part by scholars already enrolled 
and attending- the public schools, in temporary rented prem- 
ises, -which the ne^v buildings will displace ; that while official 
data of school population and its increase show an estimate 
of 5 per cent, increase in attendance to be excessively liberal, 
the estimates for supplies ask for 26 per cent, increase in the 
appropriation to provide for the increased attendance ; 

6. That the outlay for general supplies, repairs, fuel, lighting and 

lanitor service is extremely disproportionate as between the 
Borough of Manhattan and the Borough of Brooklyn, on the 
bases of eqtiivalent results or equal services, and that there 
is a similar disproportion as between the variotis schools, 
especially in Manhattan ; 

7. That the printed estimates in the Budget contain no data that 

"will enable the Board of Estimate and Apportioninent to 
readily discover the discrepancies cited ; that they cannot test 
questionable items, because they cannot segregate the ele- 
ments of cost, and therefore cannot compare the results of a 
given outlay with the results of other outlays for identical 
purposes under equivalent conditions ; and, to sum up, that 
every essential of effective audit and scrutiny is omitted. 
Because of these oinissions the printed reports of the Board 
of Education have no statistical or actuarial value whatever. 
They contain no proper schedules or exhibits of details, no 
lucid digests, fe^w needful or verifiable aggregates, and no 
clear summaries. They neither exhibit nor explain. As 
serious statements of the business affairs of a great corpora- 
tion they are inere travesties. 

Some of the conditions of fact upon which the foregoing proposi- 
tions rest are set forth below in detail. 

Until the present year the estimates of the departments have not 
been in printed form. They have occupied many thousand tj'pewritten 
pages, and it was therefore a physical impossibility to examine them 
readily and with proper care. The people of this city owe Comptroller 
Coler a debt of gratitude for compelling a reform in this respect. This 
year, for the first time, the City Budget has been submitted to the 
Board of Estimate and Apportioninent in printed form and with some 
semblance of logical arrangement, whereby the various estimates may 
be partially scrutinized. I am under deep obligation to the Comptroller 

4 



for a copy of this important public document, which is not for pui)lic 
distribution, and without which no useful examination can be made. 

The valuable beginning thus made is the more deserving of praise 
because of the exceeding difficulty of the task, incident to harmonizing 
into one workable system the chaotic accounts of more than ninety 
separate municipal, village, town and school corporations merged in the 
consolidated city. But the admirable results already gained by the 
Compti-oller's logical and analytical methods only emphasize the need 
of going further on the same lines. There are still many defects which 
readily conceal waste. Some of these exist because the Comptroller has 
not the legal power to correct them. This is illustrated by the annual 
report of the Board of Education, whose accounts are not subject to 
audit in detail by the Comptroller, and whose estimates and reports are 
not in such form as to make thorough scrutiny practicable. 

Because of the legal pov^erlessness of the Comptroller to check 
wasteful outlays of whose character he is aware, this city suffers heavily. 
I have personally inspected a large number of bills on file in the Com- 
troller's office whose original amounts wei-e largely in excess of the 
market value of the articles and the services charged for. These large 
overcharges were pursuant to agreements or contracts entered into by 
city officials under statutory provisions which enable them to commit 
the city to the payment of such obligations. The Comptroller cannot 
successfully resist payment unless he can prove intent to defraud. The 
only effective protection which he can afford the city's interests is to 
delay payment and through such delay force a partial reduction from 
the overcharges. 

While this particular form of waste of the people's money is not 
legal fraud, it is fraud in its essence. Because the Comptroller is unable 
to prevent it under existing conditions, it is desired to appeal to the 
Legislature for the necessary statutes to cure this evil. The city now 
loses many hundreds of thousands of dollars annually by it. The proofs 
vi^ill be forthcoming whenever the public wishes them. 

I have, aAvaiting your inspection and action, further examples of 
extreme wastefulness and of a probable fraud in the city's revenues. I 
am prepared to point out in one bureau alone a waste of nearly 60 per 
cent, in salaries of somewhat more than $200,000, and to demonstrate the 
waste by showing conclusively that not only equal but more efficient 
service has been rendered for less than one-quarter of the amount so 
paid. 

I respectfully request that you will take decisive action upon these 
matters at the earliest practicable moment, for the reason that in case 
it is not deemed Avise for this Association to enter upon them it is my 
purpose to at once arrange otherwise for their proper disposal in the 
public interest. Respectfully submitted, 

Frederick B. De Berard. 



II. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONABLE ITEMS. 

The validity of specific outlays for spscific purposes can only be tested by a comparison with other 
outlays for similar purposes made under similar conditions. There are 191 separate school premises 
occupied by schools in Manhattan and 133 in Brooklyn. The amount of outlay proper for each of these 
(aside from that required for teachers) is contingent wholly upon the capacity, character and equipment 
of the respective buildings and upon the number of scholars in attendance. The proper measure of 
capacity is the number of sittings and classrooms; the relative economy is affected by the equipment, and 
the number of scholars is, of course, shown by the record of attendance. The Special School Fund of more 
than $4,500,000 is divided among these 323 school premises in 21 distinct schedules. Each of these 
schedules is isolated from the others. Nowhere in the estimates or reports are the amounts apportioned 
to each school under the respective schedules collated and reduced to an aggregate. Nowhere are the 
outlays of the various schools so collated that they can be compared with the outlays of other 
schools for similar purposes. Above all, they are nowhere brought into comparison for test purposes with 
the data which should control the outlays, namely, with the measure of the capacity of the school and the 
results as shown by the attendance. The statements of average attendance are contradictory and wholly 
unreliable. This is shown by the analysis in detail which follows in Sec. VII. of this report. There 
is no detailed schedule of the number of sittings in the various schools. As it is therefore impossible to 
learn with exactitude the relative capacity of the various schools, the proper demands of each for fuel, 
lighting, janitor service and general repairs cannot be ascertained. 

The only clue to capacity which these extraordinary public reports supply is a statement of the total 
number of sittings, whose form and manifest omissions make it of questionable value. It is a very flimsy basis, 
but such as it is it is the sole basis by which the validity of the estimates for the Special School Fund con- 
tained in the printed Budget of the current year and controlling the proposed disbursement of $4,641,890 
can be even partially tested. It does not permit of a comparison between the running expenses of the 
respective schools, but it does permit of a comparison of the aggregate outlays of Manhattan and Brooklyn 
and a test of them by a common standard deduced from the number of sittings stated by the President of 
the Board of Education. 

The following analysis of certain items in the School Budget shows that for seemingly identical results 
a much greater outlay is made in Manhattan than in Brooklyn. The data that establish that fact are all 
drawn from the Reports of the Board of Education and from the printed Budget. They do not, however, 
appear in this form, nor in any suitable statistical form. They are not collated, but are widely scattered 
in separate reports, and in some cases require long computations. But until they have been so collated the 
items of the Budget cannot be analyzed or tested. The estimates as presented to the Board of Estimate 
and Apportionment do not reveal these wide differences in the cost of equivalents and, of course, do not 
explain them. That is to say, they are hidden by the reports whose function is to reveal and thereby to 
prevent such differences. The data of the reports cannot be properly sifted and collated in the form 
necessary to test the items of the School Budget without many days' patient labor by a statistical expert. 
Unless this is done by some one the Board of Estimate and Apportionment must of necessity vote the 
appropriation blindly. 

It is not asserted that these differences cannoi he exp\3.\ned, but that they arf «o/ explained ; that they 
are not easily discoverable, when they should be clearly set forth; that they may hide waste, and that 
underthe present system effective scrutiny by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment is extremely diffi- 
cult and, therefore, unlikely. 



TABLE No. L 

COMPARATIVE COSTS: MANHATTAN 
AND BROOKLYN. 

Comparison Between Equivalent Units for Fiscal Year Ending 

Dec. 31 1899. 

Supplies (Per i,ooo Pupils): 

Manhattan $2,155.29 Excess $3i5-37 i7«^ 

Brooklyn 1,839.92 

General Repairs (Per 1,000 Sittings) ; 

Manhattan $2,118.53 " f559-o3---- 351^ 

Brooklyn i, 559-5° 

Fuel (Per 1,000 Sittings) : 

Manhattan $615.80 " $9i-53 i7f^ 

Brooklyn 524- 27 

Lighting (Per 1,000 Sittings) : 

Manhattan $237-52 " $152-32 1781^ 

Brooklyn 85. 20 

Janitors (Per 1,000 Sittings) : 

For school year ending July 31, 1899. 

Manhattan $1, 395-5° " $497-02- - • - 55i?^ 

Brooklyn 898.48 



Citations of Official Data Upon Which the Above Comparison Is Based. 

As all the foregoing figures are deduced, it is necessary to prove them by citing the data upon which 
they are based. They are therefore given below. The insufficiency of the reports could not be more 
clearly illustrated than by tracing the steps without which analysis cannot be made, and which are required 
by the essential omissions. 

Supplies. — Sec. 59 By-Laws Board of Education requires an annual report in January for the 
preceding calendar year, of the amount of supplies furnished each school, the cost per pupil, the aggregate 
cost of supplies as compared with the previous year. Sec. 62 provides that supplies shall be distributed 
among the respective schools in a fixed proportion based upon attendance. These details for the year 
ending Dec. 31, 1899, may be found in the Annual Report of the Board of Education for 1899, pages 109 
to 133. Summaries of the respective aggregate outlays are given on the pages named: 

Manhattan $498,469.50 (Page 124) 

Brooklyn 282,958.70 (Page 133) 

The average attendance which should govern the distribution of these supplies is not stated in the 
aggregate. To ascertain it, about 500 separate items must be collated, from three separate schedules, 

.7 



isolated from each other, and distributed through 25 pages; 16 long columns must be added, and the 
attendance of two sub-classes must be deduced from gross figures elsewhere given and covering a different 
period. These details may be found on the pages named : 

Manhattan : {Average Attendance Fiscal Year.) 

Day Schools, Nos. i to 169. (Aggregates not given; deduced by adding columns of details 

on pages 1 10 to 1 19.) 214,946 

High Schools, Training School and Truant School, (page 123) 3.93° 

Evening Schools (page 17, for school year ending July 31, 1899) 12,401 

Total, Manhattan 231,277 

Brooklyn: {Average Attendance Fiscal Year.) 

Day Schools, Nos. i to 121, ) , ^ . . • j j j ,, jj- 1 , 

Hi|h Schools, Truant School, [ (Aggfega e not given ; deduced by addmg columns of 

Training School, S '^^'^''' °" pages 125 to .30) 150,367 

Evening Schools (page 67 for school year ending July 31, 1899) 3,464 

Total, Brooklyn 153,831 

The average attendance cited above was the basis for the distribution of supplies ; it is for the fiscal 
year January-December, 1899. It is considerably greater than the actual average for the school year 
ending July 31, 1900. The later period should normally have the larger attendance. An analysis of the 
whole subject follows in Sec. VII. 

Number of Sittings. — This is stated in aggregate in the Report of the President of the Board of 
Education, addressed to the Mayor, under date July 31, 1899. (Page 16 An. Rept. Board of Education.) 

Manhattan and The Bronx 232,931 

Brooklyn 140, 5 20 

No detailed statement of sittings is given. 

Janitor Service. ^^or School Year ending July 31, 1899. 

Manhattan (page 58) $325,074. 12 

Brooklyn (page 61) 126,251.59 

This does not include extra payments to janitors for evening schools, which are not separated from 
teachers' salaries. The amount is small. 

Repairs, Fuel and Lighting. — For Fiscal Year, January-December, 1899. 
Manhattan: (Pages 87 and 93, Auditor's Report.) 

General repairs $493, 407. 93 

Fuel 143,420.00 

Lighting 55,318.00 

Brooklyn: (Pages 88 and 95, Auditor's Report.) 

General repairs $219,610.00 

Fuel 73,661.00 

Lighting 1 1,971.00 

Note. — Some additions to the number of sittings stated above were made in the period between the 
close of the school year and the close of the fiscal year. The number is not stated by the reports. The 
deduced outlay per thousand sittings is obtained by dividing the total outlay for the fiscal year by the 
number of sittings reported July 31st. Because of the discrepancy in the periods, the true figures will 
vary slightly from those deduced, but the relative amounts will not be appreciably affected. 

That the proportionate outlay for the items cited is greater in Manhattan than in Brooklyn is obvious 
from the foregoing comparison. Whether the difference is warrantable cannot be accurately learned from 
any exhibits contained in the reports or the Budget. 



III. GENERAL REPAIRS. 

The account of General Repairs is wholly blind. It cannot be analyzed. The current Budget calls for 
nearly $900,000.00 on this account for the two boroughs under Schedule i, pages 1366 to 1376. The nature 
of this Schedule may be inferred from the statement that under the head " Heating" after striking out the 
amounts for new apparatus, leaving only the amounts for repairs and ordinary replacement, the average 
amount asked for Manhattan is S249.00 per school, as against $150.50 for Brooklyn. The "Sanitary" 
account is even more questionable. Tlie entire Schedule of General Repairs deserves the severest criticism. 
The most cursory study of it shows that it readily might, and probably does, cover enormous waste. The 
estimate for the current year cannot be analyzed to any material extent by comparison between the several 
Borough estimates, but some useful insight can be gleaned from the following table: 



TABLE No, 2, 

GENERAL REPAIRS : DISTRIBUTION 
OF OUTLAY, 



Less Than $500. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan 18 

" " Brooklyn 113 

$500 AND Less Than $1,000. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan 46 

" Brooklyn 3 

f 1,000 AND Less Than $2,000. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan 54 

" " Brooklyn 12 

$2,000 AND Less Than $4,000. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan 42 

Brooklyn 12 

$4,000 AND Less Than $6,000. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan 10. 

Brooklyn 2 

Over $6,000. 

Number of Schools, Manhattan i . 



Average Amount 



$337- 00 
88.50 

$772.00 
818.00 



$1,390.00 
1,295.00 

$2, 537-00 
2,477.00 

$4,556.00 
4,585-00 

$8,335-00 



The table below shows the cost of repairing new school buildings in Manhattan. 
the average allowance for repairing old buildings in Brooklyn. 



This is about twice 



TABLE No. 3: COST OF GENERAL REPAIRS: NEW SCHOOLS. 



Dec, 1899. 



First Year of 

Service, SCHOOL. 

Year Ending : 

July, 1899 No. 42. 

" " 153- 

" " 158. 

" " " 160. 

" 157. 

" 165. 

" 166. 

" 159- 

" 164. 

" 40. 

" 167. 

" 173- 

" 169. 

" 44-. 

" 174- 

" 109. 



Dec, 1900. 



ESTIMATES FOR igoi.- 
Sanitary. 



General 
Repairs. 

$ 385 $160. 

. 1,000 160. 

• 1,085 150- 

• 1.585 150- 

5°o 575- 

• 385 185. 

• 3,435 250- 

■ 585 25°- 

650 150. 

585 150- 

■ 1, 5°° 150- 

500 15°- 

5°° 15°- 

285 100 . 

385 150- 

• 85 135. 



Heating. 

..$250. 
.. 150. 
.. 310. 
■ • 300- 



Number 
Classrooms. 



42 

. . 14 

48 

39 

200 45 

300 45 

260 39 

490 48 

225 21 

270 29 

27s 30 

30 

250 30 

100 20 

24 

5° '.....48 



The account of General Repairs embodies the most vicious defects possible to a system of audit. It 
lumps together in one inseparable mass outlays that should be differentiated into separate accounts of 
Construction, Maintenance, Operation, Betterment, Labor, Materials, Administration, and similar group- 
ings. Possibly the outlays are thus separated and recorded in the accounts of the Board of Education. 
The published reports of that body do not indicate it. 



IV. FUEL AND LIGHTING. 

The relatively greater outlay in Manhattan for fuel and lighting indicates waste. A comparison in 
detail is required to exhibit the fact and locate the cause. The estimates do not supply details. The 
Board of Estimate and Apportionment therefore votes the lump sums asked for these items without 
effective scrutiny. The following letter from the Department of Finance in reply to an inquiry on that 
point explains itself : 

"Department of Finance, City of New York, Dec. 10, 1900. 

" Mr. Frederick B. De Berard, 

"Care of The Merchants' Association of New York, 
"New York Life Building, City. 
"Dear Sir: 

" Replying to your communication of the 5th inst., which was received at this office on the 8th, I beg 
to state that the records of this Department do not show the cost of the fuel and the lighting of the City 
schools, separately. 



10 



' Payments were made from time to time to the contractor supplying fuel upon the usual requisition 
from the Board of Education, and since the passage of the Davis law payments of this character were 
made by the Treasurer of the Board of Education, the payments on account of lighting being made in a 
similar manner. 

"An examination of the vouchers on file in this department for payments made to the time of the 
passage of the Davis law will enable you to determine the amount expended for account of lighting and 
fuel in the several schools. 

"The amounts appropriated annually for account of Corporate Schools are paid to them in lump 
sum. "Yours very truly, 

(Signed) " M. T. Daly, 

"Deputy Comptroller." 

V. JANITOR SERVICE. 

The relative outlay for Janitor Service in Manhattan and Brooklyn is shown by the following table 
It has been arranged with a view to comparing equivalents of capacity so far as they can be gathered 
They are nowhere (iollated in the reports or estimates. The only clues are afforded by the number of 
classrooms and the average attendance. These are not sufficient for exact results. In the present 
instance they suffice to show that the scale of payment to janitors is uniformly larger in Manhattan than 
in Brooklyn, and therefore that the rate paid in Manhattan is uniformly higher: 



TABLE NO. 4: COMPARATIVE COST OF JANITOR SERVICE. 



No. 
Rooms. 

4- 

4- 



6. 
6. 
6. 
8. 
8. 

9- 

lO. 
lO. 

II . 
II. 
II . 

12. 
12. 

13- 
13- 
13- 
13- 
14- 
14. 
14. 
14. 
'5- 
15- 
15- 



MANHATTAN. 



School 

No. 



.132. 
134. 



Salary. 
$754. 

533- 



No. 
Scholars. 

. . 120 

• 73 



102 1,326 198 

1 18 1,183 "o 

138 1,170 216 

112 936 385 

143 845 289 

99 1,092 202 

24 897 349 

146 '.547 '62 

III 87 1 236 

128 1,027 546 

130 988 596 

52 1,053 >39 

MO 1,131 747 

9' ''495 528 

95 i,ooi 422 

,150 1,833 1,002 

,155 2,002 159 



.08. 

113. 

119. 
.124. 
. 98. 
,106. 
.114. 



1,053. 

1,144. 

1,118. 

767. 

1,781- 
1,196. 
1,131 . 



524 
456 
507 
604 

653 
609 
889 



No. 
Rooms. 



4- 
4- 
5- 
6. 
6. 
6. 
6. 



10. 
10. 



1 1 . 
12. 
12. 
12. 



14. 
14. 
14. 
14. 

«5- 



School 
No. 

. 69., 
. 91. 

. 48. 

• 93- 

• 95- 
.114. 
.120. 
. 64. 
. 66. 



BROOKLYN. 

Salary. 
$600. 

475- 

580. 

530- 

640 . 

470- 

130- 

775- 

705- 



67. 
100. 



102. 

, 8. 

62. 

103. 



42. 
52. 

56. 

59- 
lOI . 



635. 
855. 



730. 
810. 
910. 
780. 



No. 
Scholars. 

81 

. 251 

• 244 
. 269 

172 

. 428 

127 

• 7" 
■ 751 



'79 
657 



636 
608 
646 
678 



860 812 

815 868 

865 804 

845. 1,022 

995 825 



n 



MANHATTAN. BROOKLYN 

No. School No. No. School No 

Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars. Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars. 

15 120 1.053 623 

15 126 1,209 S'3 

16 125 1,625 539 '6 20 840 830 

16 131 858 861 16 47 845 1,260 

16 133 1,664 728 '6 50 740 713 

'6 57 1,17.; 924 

16 58 1,045 815 

16 60 955 1,106 

I 

I M 90 



r\::::.:Z\ ■■«.»■ 



104 1.235 548 9' 80 f 



>.373 



16 98 1 . 1 40 369 

17 66 1,807 560 17 38 925 717 

17 116 1,417 450 

17 125 1,404 702 



17 127 1,430 770 

18 44 1,612 858 18 21 845 1,474 

18 65 1,339 800 18 29 945 748 

18 80 '.274 283 18 [ 41 

18.... 



1,025 1,276 



18 105 1,885 r,io4 18 79 1. 175 '.333 

18 136 1. 170 876 18 94 1,020 959 

18 152 2,444 587 18 117 1,290 1,325 

20 107 1,443 552 19 63 735 596 

21 60 1,599 784 20 49 965 1,093 

21 81 1,989 542 20 51 1,155 1,225 

21 115 1,521 1,051 20 65 1,185 978 

21 140 1,482 1,102 20 71 1,155 1,330 

21 155 2,678 21 28 940 1,389 

21 156 1,989 883 21 54 1,150 1,244 

21 163 1,209 r 858 

21 164 2,288 750 

23 117 1, 612 1,021 2} 4 1,365 1,308 

23 142 1,508 1,011 23 14 980 987 

24 48 1,716 795 24 6 1,160 1,160 

24 64 2,106 1,138 24 7 1,055 958 

24 74 1,560 1. 167 

24 76 1,420 1,275 

24 78 1,400 1,201 

24 82 1,360 1,411 

24 83 1,360 1.450 

24 87 1 ,460 1 , 570 

24 88 1,460 1,621 

25 16 1,690 1,202 25 107 '.775 1.426 

25 21 1,508 1.056 .' 

25 45 1.326 914 

25 92 1.924 1,438 

26 55 1.625 980 26 9 1,660 1,028 

26 46 1,320 1.386 

26 1 13 1.560 1,320 

27 31 1,391 1,286 27 39 1,130 1,338 

27 121 2,028 1,362 

12 



MANHATTAN. BROOKLYN. 

No. School No. No. School No. 

Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars. Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars 

27 135 2, 1 sS 1 ,230 

28 8 1,950 1,340 28 I 1,055 1,077 

28 II 1,768 1,181 28 34 1,350 1,143 

28 26 1,911 1,038 28 68 1,360 1,505 

28 41 1,456 1,151 28 109 1,560 1,579 

28 56 1,547 1,216 28 I 10 1,560 I,QI3 

28 141 1,586 1,360 28 116 1,670 2,088 

28 161 1,560 1,448 

29 27 1,012 968 29 18 1,285 '.'63 

29 38 1,534 1,283 29 118 1,880 1,882 

29 50 1.677 1,066 

29 82 2,171 1,836 

29 1 22 2, 288 1 , 322 

29 1 69 3, 406 508 

30 2 3,640 2,576 30 22 1,325 1,231 

30 12 1,547 1,254 30 24 1,395 1,758 

30 23 2,678 1,375 ?o 86 1,410 ',597 

30 40 3,380 1,058 



30 167 3.562 379 

30 173 3.276 

31 73 '.833 1,409 31 85 1,410 1,698 

31 Ill 1.370 1.134 

}2 39 2,366 1,603 32 II 1,505 1,364 

32 12 1,320 1,437 

32 25 f,375 1,411 

32 27 1,425 1,626 

32 30 1,460 1.350 

32 37 1.285 1.430 

32 45 1.675 1.544 

32 70 1,060 1,068 



32 75 1.160 1,377 

33 63 3,601 1,064 )} 13 1,320 1,454 

33 75 2,106 1,787 }} 19 1,270 1,724 

33 84 2,054 1.704 33 32 1,420 1,947 

34 1 3.887 2,325 ^} 36 1,365 1,261 

34 36 1.703 1.871 

34 151 2,561 1,478 

35 71 1,703 1,522 35 5 1,410 1,260 

35 72 1.875 1.573 

36 }2 1,989 1,762 36 17 1,160 1,744 

36 67 2,873 867 36 }^ 1,320 2,402 

36 40 1 . 7 30 2, 1 46 

37 3 1.937 1.728 

37 9 3.432 1.005 

37 42 4.056 1,869 

37 78 2,171 1,719 

38 58 2,353 1,559 38 2 1,840 1,945 

38 61 2,496 1,784 38 53 1,055 1,450 

38 72 2,574 2,363 38 55 1,955 2,043 

38 76 2,106 1,690 

13 



MANHATTAN. BROOKLYN. 

No. School No. No. School No. 

Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars. Rooms. No. Salary. Scholars. 

}9 28 2,028 1,529 39 73 1,780 1,991 

39 46 4.472 2,2S6 

40 15 1,651 1,599 40 84 1,895 '.646 

41 43 2, 560 1 ,938 

42 6 3.341 1,820 42. 15 1,760 '.790 

42 22 1,976 2,107 42 31 1,835 1,803 

42 30 3.484 1.809 

42 37 2,743 1,565 

42 49 2,470 1,763 

42 51 2,106 1.936 

42 62 3.380 2,247 

43 33 2,584 2,017 43 16 1,625 2,083 

43 68 1,586 1,958 43 43........ 2,505 3,092 

44 4 2,106 2,890 44 3 2,240 2,146 

44 53 2,301 1,939 44 77 1,950 2,260 

44 74 2,457 2,009 44 loS 2,095 '.867 

44 103 5,887 2,654 

45 18 1,859 1.833 

45 34 2,756 2,444 

45 86 2,626 2, 122 

45 '57 4. <47 '."65 

45 '65 4.992 1,353 

46 35 1.729 '.473 

46 42 4,056 1,869 

46 54 3,029 2,214 

46 70 2,015 1,840 

47 10 4,056 2,932 47 10 1,880 2,610 

47 59 ''755 '.939 

47 69 2,548 1,619 

47 96 3.783 2,072 

48 20 4,121 3,108 48 44 '2,350 2,354 

48 158 4,524 1,629 

48 159 4.784 854 

49 5 4.420 2,678 49 35 2,225 2,645 

49 85 3,081 2,357 

49 90 3,=)88 ...2,662 

49 '54 3.835 2,395 



50 23 2,200 2 61a 

51 7 2,795 2,619 5' '06 2,620 2,346 

51 57 2,717 2,660 

53 17 1,859 2,075 53 26 2,445 2,632 

53 19 3.'S5 2,585 

54 '4 3.497 2,069 

55 93 4.407 2,618 

56 13 3.276 2,357 

58 77 3,250 2,818 

60 25 2,769 2,733 



14 



VI. SCHOOL SUPPLIES. 

The estimates for school supplies are in etlect deduced from a per capita basis, multiplied by the num- 
bar of pupils. The provisions of Sections 59 and 62 of the By-laws arrange for standards of quantity per 
scholar, a per capita record of value, and a report of annual aggregate outlay, and average attendance as 
nearly as it can be ascertained. There are no data in the Budget or reports that enable the Board of Esti- 
mate and Apportionment to test the validity of the per capita cost. Hence the last appropriation is the 
accepted basis ; and as the per capita allowance for new scholars is also a settled factor, the only detail 
actually subject to question is the probable number of new pupils next year. The following table exhibits 
the data relating to the supply account, as deduced from the official reports. Neither the aggregates nor 
the average per capita amounts are presented, and it requires patience and industry to so collate them. 



TABLE No. 5, 

AVERAGE ATTENDANCE AS A PER 
CAPITA BASIS FOR SUPPLIES, 

Average Attendance for Preceding Year. 

Manhattan: 

July, 1898, Number reported for apportionment 199,261 

Dec, 1898, " " " supplies 209,090 

July, 1899, " " " apportionment 222,093 

Dec, 1899, " " " supplies 231,277 

July, 1900, " " " apportionment 220,039 

Dec, 1900, " for whom supplies were allowed 231,277 

July, 1 90 1, " " apportionment, estimated at normal rate of 

increase 226,639 

Dec, 1901, Number for whom supplies are asked, on basis of 1900, plus 

estimated increase 253,277 

Brooklyn: 

July 1898, Number reported for apportionment 124,694 

Dec, 1898, " " " supplies 126,900 

July, 1899, " " " apportionment 127,916 

Dec, 1S99, " " " supplies 153,831 

July, 1900, " " " apportionment 13°. 131 

Dec, 1900, " for whom supplies were allowed 153,831 

July, 1901, " " apportionment, estimated at normal rate of 

increase i33i9°i 

Dec, 1 90 1, Number for whom supplies are asked, on basis of 1900, plus 

estimated increase 168,551 



The above exhibit shows that the annual attendance averages of the fiscal year, upon which the appro- 
priations for supplies are granted, are much larger than the annual attendance averages of the school year. 
On the basis of the estimates of the current Budget, Brooklyn would get supplies for at least 35,000 more 
pupils than the actual number. A study of comparative per capita outlays will shed light on the cause. 

15 



TABLE NO. 6: COMPARATIVE COST OF SUPPLIES. 
AGGREGATE AND PER CAPITA. 

{Supplies only.) 

MANHATTAN. Per Cap. BROOKLYN. Per Cap- 

1898 I454, 118 $2.17 1898 $214,695 $1.69 

1899 498,469 2.15 1890 282,958 1.84 

1900 498,469 2.15 1900 282,958 1.84 

1 90 1 602, 166 1 90 1 372,739 

In every previous instance the gross amount of the previous year's appropriation for supplies has been 
accepted as a basis for the next year's estimate. That rule is departed from in the present Budget, in the 
case of Brooklyn. The quantities of the various kinds of supplies required are stated. The cost of supplies 
for 153,831 pupils during the present fiscal year was ^282,958. To supply an equal number about $330,000 
is asked. It is significant that when reduced to a per capita basis the amount per scholar is $2.15, exactly 
the amount that has been the basis in New York for several years. 

On pages 1398 and 1399 of the printed Budget will be found the estimates for supplies required for 
Manhattan schools during the year 1901. The amount stated to be necessary is $631,817.08 — an increase 
of $131,817.08. Under Sec. 59, By-Laws Board of Education (cited above), $500,000.00 of this amount is 
not subject to question; "it goes" without scrutiny. Only the increase is examined. Some of the 
details are as follows: 

New Schools and Additions to be opened during the year 1901 — 

No. 178 — 18 Classrooms. ] 90 Classrooms. 

No. 182 — 24 " VAv. 45 Pupils 

No. 186 — 48 " I per Room. New pupils 4.050 

To provide these new pupils with books and other supplies an allowance of $3.38>i per capita is 
asked, making an aggregate of $13,709.25. 

The plans for these schools were not finished until late last year; they were not authorized or con- 
tracted for until the present year, and they cannot be ready for occupancy until 1902. The completion and 
occupancy of a number of additions, kindergartens, workshops, gymnasiums and kitchens are likewise 
assumed, and requisition is made for supplies. The details should be stated in the report for 1900, which 
the statute requires the Board of Education to make to the Mayor under date of July 31st. That report 
was not made until after December ist; it has not been printed; a copy was asked for but could not be 
obtained; hence the desired details cannot be readily learned. The following items must therefore be 
taken on trust: 

New Schools and Additions. Seating capacity, 10,395 pupils, at $3.38;^ $35,817.08 

5 Gymnasiums at $600 $3,000.00 

5 Workshops at $5 50 2, 750.00 

5 Kitchens at $450 2,250.00 

15 Kindergartens at $250 3,750.00 — 1 1,750.00 

Increased Attendance, High Schools 25,000.00 

Summer Schools, Playgrounds, Etc 1 5,000.00 

Truant Schools 5,780.00 

Increase in Attendance at Old Schools, 7,500 pupils, at $1.38 10,350.00 

Total Increase for Supplies for New Scholars $103,697.08 

Nearly 40 per cent, of the scholars assumed by the first item are non-existent. 

The average cost of supplies per scholar, as shown by preceding tables, was in 1899 $2. 15 in Manhattan 
and $1.83 in Brooklyn. The item for High Schools is on the basis of 57 per cent, increase in two years ; 
and the estimate for salaries and cartage is raised from $18,449 '" '^99 ^o $28,750 in 1901. 

16 



The foregoing estimate specifies 17,895 new pupils. Tlic assumed total increase is not less than 
22,000. That is about three times the number that the normal increase in population would supply. At 
the close of the school year July, 1899, the school records of this City showed an abnormally large 
enrollment, attendance and capacity. Manhattan not only had more pupils in proportion to population 
than other cities, but it had seemingly more accommodation for them. The analysis of average attend- 
ance in the next section will show the bearing of these conditions upon the outlays for supplies and for 
new schoolhouses. 

The obvious intent of Sec. 62, By-Laws Board of Education, is to provide for a practically uniform 
distribution of supplies — that scholars and schools having like needs shall receive equal quantities. It 
therefore requires that supplies shall be distributed pro rata according to a fixed schedule or tariff which 
shall not be exceeded. To guard against wastefulness, Sec. 59 requires that the aggregate amount shall 
be stated in an annual report, in comparison with the outlay of the previous year ; and that the cost per 
pupil shall be stated. 

The purpose of these sections is to provide a fixed standard of outlay and check waste by reports that 
shall expose it by comparison. Although the detached data are set forth in the reports, they are wholly 
undigested and are not utilized as intended. Unless classified and exhibited in comparative form, they are 
useless; and they are not so exhibited. Only a superficial and uncertain comparison can be made. It 
shows that the per capita outlay for school supplies in Manhattan is uniformly much larger than in Brooklyn 
for corresponding classes of scholars. It also shows extreme variations in the per capita cost not only for 
identical grades in the different schools of Manhattan, but also in comparative annual cost of identical 
grades in the same school. Reports which will permit accurate comparison of complete data are desirable. 



VII. SCHOOL ACCOMMODATIONS. 

The outlays for public schools in this city are based primarily upon the school records of attendance ; 
upon estimates of the school population for which sittings must be provided, and upon the shifting of 
established population into new areas previously settled but sparsely. 

In 1890, according to the data of the U. S. Census, the proportion of children of school age to total 
population was smaller in this city than in the other cities of the State, and the proportion of private and 
sectarian school attendance was greater. Therefore, the proportion of the population for which public 
school facilities were required was relatively smaller in New York and Brooklyn than elsewhere. The 
relative school demands and facilities of the several cities were as follows : 

Population Dependent on Public Schools, 1890. 

For Each 1,000 of Total Population : 

Manhattan : Children dependent on public schools 228 

Brooklyn : Children dependent on public schools 225 

All other cities of the State : Children dependent on public schools 245.6 

Pupils Enrolled and Provided for in Each 1,000 

Children Dependent on Public Schools : 

Manhattan 573 

Brooklyn 579 

All other cities of State, average 559 

In 1890, therefore, this city's school accommodations were relatively greater than those of any other 
city in the State, and the proportion of public school population to the total relatively smaller. Table 7 
below shows that since 1S90 the public school population of this city has apparently increased in much 
greater proportion than elsewhere throughout the State. 



17 



TABLE No, 7. 

INCREASED DEMANDS FOR PUBLIC 
SCHOOL FACILITIES. 

Pupils 

School Population. School Population. perM. 

Total 5 to 17 Dependent on Public School Public 

MA xitt A mm A XT Population. Years Inclusive. Public Schools. Enrollment. School 

ANHATTAN. (23.98 per et.) (22 80 per ct.) Pop'n. 

1890 1,515.301 363,369 345,488 197,945 573 

1899 1,989,082 476,976 453,510 320,291 706 



Increase 473,781 113,607 108,122 122,346 133 

" per ct 31-28 31.28 31.28 61.80 

Brooklyn: (24.10 per ct.) (22.5 per ct.) 

1890 838,547...... 202,088 191,189 110,722 579 

1899 1,130,000 272,330 254,250 183,650 722 



Increase 291,453 70,242 63,061 72,928 143 

per ct 34.75 34.75 34.75 65.36 

THER Cities: (24.56 per ct.) 

1890 801,378 196,818 110,000 559 

1899 969,072 237,986 156,957 659 



Increase 167,694 41,168 46,957 100 

" per ct 20.92 20.92 30.56 



The foregoing table seems to show that this city now has nearly 25 per cent, more pupils in proportion 
to population than it had in 1890; and that for a given population at least five schoolhouses are now 
required where four formerly sufficed. Coincident with the large increase in the proportion of public 
school pupils has been a rapid increase of population; and upon the unu.sual demands due to these has been 
cumulated another whose extent and disturbing influence is not generally undenstood. This arises from the 
shifting of population and the rapid peopling of large suburban areas, lately farm lands and with only 
cross-roads schoolhouses. In the Borough of the Bronx, in Queens, and in all the outlying wards in 
Brooklyn, the dearth of school facilities has for two or three years been almost a public disaster. 

In the year 1899 this city provided $8,920,587 for new schools, sites and buildings and their equipment. 
During the two school years ending July, 1898, and July, 1899, provision was made for twenty-nine new 
schoolhouses and additions in the Boroughs of Manhattan and the Bronx containing 55.000 seats. Being 
unable to obtain the official report for the year ending July, 1900, I cannot state whether others were 
provided for in that year. A large number of plans were in progress and many sites had been previously 
bought or contracted for. Probably more than thirty of the new buildings and additions have already been 
completed. By the end of 1901 the completion of the improvements now in progress will have provided 
at least 60,000 new seats during the years 1898, 1899, 1900 and 1901. 

A still further great increase in the number of school buildings and seating capacity is urged, for which 
an enormous outlay is projected. 

The situation has certainly been, and still is, a very difficult and trying one; but whatever the difficul- 
ties and however pressing the need the conditions should be fully understood by the people of this city 
before more money is voted for more new schoolhouses. The map herewith has been prepared to show 
the distribution of population, the school population and the school facilities of each school district; the 
location of all old schools and their capacity, and finally the location of the schools completed within the 
past two or three years, those now in process of construction or contracted for and building sites lately 
bought. 

The map and the tables therewith show that the vast outlay of the past few years for school buildings 

18 



and sites has been in large part cumulated in certain areas ; that several new school buildings have been 
located in close proximity to each other in areas already having reasonable, although not ample, school 
facilities, while other sections whose needs are extreme have been left unprovided for. This subject will 
be separately and more fully set forth at a later date, when the question of the cost of recent school build- 
ings and sites will be gone into. 

This topic is now touched upon only for the purpose of separating the righteous cause of new schools, 
which is a most pressing and worthy one, from the cause of the vicious and inaccurate reports of school 
attendance, the cover and the excuse for wasteful outlays, which if properly applied would soon pay for the 
needed new schools. 

It would be a serious mistake to accept the showing of Table 5 as a valid argument, showing the need 
of more schools. The purpose of that table, and those that follow, is to exhibit the official basis of this 
City's school outlays; to show that it is disproportionately large in comparison with that of other cities; 
that the data upon which it rests are misleading and untrustworthy, and that those which relate to sup- 
plies are inaccurate and indicate large waste. 

The number of pupils enrolled is no safe index of the number of seats required. Evening schools 
increase the enrollment, but do not require more school buildings or more seats. Of the 320,000 different 
pupils who are enrolled in Manhattan more than 12 per cent. (38,450) are on the registers of the evening 
schools, and the attendance is less than one-third of those enrolled. There are also Summer schools, 
vacation schools, cooking schools and various " fads " for special students. Whether the enrollment and 
attendance of these is included in the aggregates cannot be learned from the official reports. For the 
most part they do not need special facilities in excess of those provided for day scholars. In effect the 
maximum attendance of day scholars (generally reached in October and November) shows the minimum 
number of seats required, provided the seats are where the pupils are. The reports of the Board of 
Education do not supply the needed data. All that can be learned from them as to relative school capac- 
ity, attendance and their increase is the following, gleaned from fragmentary data and detached state- 
ments in various parts of two annual reports and the current official budget. The source of each citation is 
stated: 



TABLE No, 8. 

RELATIVE INCREASE OF SEATING 
CAPACITY AND ATTENDANCE, 
AND RELATIVE RENT CHARGES, 
MANHATTAN AND BRONX, 

New Total Average Day Rents, 

Seats. Seats. Attendance. Schools. 

July, 1898 (ir, b) 220,931 (d) 186,990 

July, 1899 12,069 {b) 233,000 {e) 209,692 $88,526 (1899) 

July, 1900 15,000 {<:) 248,000 (/) 207,638 90,257 (1900) 

December, 1900 19,000 267,000 213,866 92,103(1901) 

Aggregate increase Seats, 46,069; attend.T.ice, 26,876 

Number of seats in excess of average attendance 53, 000 

Number of pupils per 1,000 seats 801 

Estimated on basis of 3 per cent, annual increase in population. 



19 



(a) Report Board of Education, 1899, page 10: "During the past school year (ending July, 1899) 
eight new school buildings have been opened in Manhattan and the Bronx, containing 260 class- 
rooms and providing room for about 12,000 pupils." 

(6) Report Board of Education, 1899, page 16. 

{c} Report of Board of Education, 1899, page 10: "A number of schoolhouses contracted for prior 
to consolidation * * * are now approaching completion in the Boroughs of Manhattan and 
the Bronx, and will be ready for occupancy at or soon after the opening of the school year in 
September next" (1899). 

{d) No aggregate given in official reports. Number obtained by adding 255 separate items, con- 
tained on pages 55 to 64 inclusive, Report Board of Education, 1898. 

(e) Aggregate of detai'ed items, pages 52 to 57 inclusive. Report of Board of Education, 1899. On 
page 16 the average daily attendance is stated as 202, 133. This number does not conform to 
the sum of the separate items in the schedules on pages 52 to 57. 

(/) Page 976, Official Budget for 1901, of which but 11 copies were printed. It states that the 
aggregate number of days of attendance at Manhattan public schools for the previous school 
year was 42,027,584. The day attendance and evening attendance is not segregated, nor the 
number of session days stated. The averag«PMumber was deducted after the necessary factors 
had been otherwise obtained. 

It appears from the foregoing data that the number of sittings available keeps well ahead of the 
demand for them. During the last school year, although about 15,000 new seats were supplied, the 
attendance was less than in the previous year.;^^These new facilities have not largely displaced rented 
premises. In 1899, when the rent charge in -SSfthattan was about $88,000, the President of the Board of 
Education pointed out that the constructio^BT new schoolhouses would materially 4e§sen that charge. 
About 30 new schoolhouses and additions wiwi from 45,000 to 50,000 seats have been added during the 
past three years; nevertheless over $92,000 is wanted for rents during next year. Admitting the urgent 
need of new schools the facts set forth seem to indicate that those provided have not been judiciously 
located at the points of congestion or deficiency. It should not be inferred that new schools are not 
required, because some new schools may have been put in inaccessible places. There are many sections 
k where new schools are urgently needed. 



211 



